I am on a panel discussion tomorrow night at the National Conference of the Free Grace Alliance. The panel discussion is related to the death and resurrection of Jesus, and whether a person needs to know and believe these historical facts in order to be born again. My invitation to this discussion is due to the so-called Crossless Gospel controversy. People accuse me of teaching a Crossless Gospel, which is exceedingly strange, since I believe the cross is at the very center of the gospel. Without the cross, there is no Gospel.
Anyway, here are some of the issues to be addressed in this Free Grace Alliance panel discussion.
Is Belief in the Death and Resurrection Necessary?
I am presenting the view that while the death and resurrection of Jesus was necessary for justification to be possible, belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus is not what grants a person eternal life. A person simply needs to believe in Jesus for eternal life to be given it by God. I have written on this in the past. Certainly, the death and resurrection of Jesus are central to the Gospel, but since there is so much Biblical information that is part of the Gospel, one does not have to believe the entire Gospel to be justified.
There is a difference between the mechanism of justification (the death and resurrection of Jesus, along with a myriad of other things) and the message of eternal life (believe in Jesus for it). In other words, there is a difference between the Gospel information, and the Gospel invitation.
I agreed to be on this panel for three reasons.
Clarity in Evangelism
First, I want people to be clear in evangelism. If we have a muddled evangelistic message, all we do is erect barriers which keep people from believing in Jesus for eternal life. The death and resurrection of Jesus are definitely part of what we share in evangelism, but we tell them these things to convince and persuade them to believe in Jesus for eternal life, not because they get eternal life by believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus. It’s a nuance, but a very important one. After all, there are many who believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, but don’t believe in Him for eternal life.
Hear from the Horse’s Mouth
Second, I know there are a lot of people who are trying to understand the various positions on the Gospel, and there are many people accusing me of believing things I don’t believe.
So I hope to let them hear my position from me rather than from those out there who don’t understand my position but continue to write pejorative and negative things about me. It’s always best when researching a matter to go to the source.
To Understand the Other Views
Third, I see no logical or Biblical consistency in the view of those who are taking the opposing view. Clearly, they think their view is logical and Biblical or they wouldn’t hold it. I am not exactly trying to persuade them to my view, but I do want to try to understand their view. Toward that end, here are the questions I hope to have answered:
- If a person must believe in the death of resurrection of Jesus, is it sufficient to believe in the historical facts of these events, or does a person also have to believe in substitutionary atonement?
- If a person does have to believe in substitutionary atonement, what if that person holds the ransom to Satan view?
- If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, do they have to believe that it was by the shedding of blood of Jesus on the cross that sins are forgiven, or can they just believe that it was simply His death that was sufficient? In other words, does a person have to understand that their sins are forgiven “by His blood” and not just by His death?
- If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, must they believe that Jesus rose in a glorified, eternal, incorruptible body, and that He went on to ascend into heaven, or can they believe that He went on to live, grow old, and die again of old age like the others who were resurrected in Scripture?
- If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, must they believe that the resurrection is a past, historical event, or can they believe that Jesus will rise from the dead in the future?
- If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, what was the object of faith for OT people and the apostles who did not (as far as we can tell) believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus? Did the object and content of faith change after the death and resurrection of Jesus?
- What passages are there in Scripture which teach that a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus in order to receive everlasting life?
- If a person believes that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, and rose again from the dead, but don’t believe that by faith in Jesus they have life that can never be lost, are they justified? (E.g., They say things like “Jesus did his 99%, but I must do my 1%” or “I’m saved now, but if I sin later, I won’t be saved any more” or “I accepted the gift of eternal life, but I can give it back if I don’t abide.”)
In all of my study of the other view, I have yet to read an attempt to answer these questions. Others have noticed this same thing, and we receive daily e-mails and phone calls from people saying they are prayerfully supporting Bob Wilkin, myself, and the ministry of Grace Evangelical Society as we continue to present the offer of eternal life to all who believe in Jesus for it.
Email Questions
Here is one such e-mail:
Jeremy,
By way of introduction, we have been with GES almost since its beginning and had been proclaiming the free grace gospel message for 25 years before that. We were instrumental in formatting the first several years of GES Journal articles for the website and have printed and distributed several thousand pages of GES articles to many pastors and Christian leaders in our area. In other words, we support what you are doing.
We have been keeping up with the ongoing issue of what constitutes the gospel message and are grieved about the possible damage to the cause of Christ that might ensue. We also have supported the ministry at Duluth for quite some time and distributed much of their literature.
I believe that your article, “The Gospel Is More Than ‘Faith Alone In Christ Alone,'” was excellent and it even helped me to “connect the dots” in some of my study on the subject. The open letter on the Duluth website refers to, among other things, this article and mentions two points of disagreement. These comments appeared to me to be a bit pejorative as there was no attempt at biblical refutation or even explanation of the context of your statements.
In addition to the significant biblical evidence that you gave for your position (a position which should be either accepted or proved wrong biblically), is one point that has come up in my study and that I have not seen mentioned anywhere.
It is as follows: In 1st Corinthians 15, we find the classic definition of the gospel which includes the death, burial, resurrection of Christ, and probably the contents of the next few verses. Per verse 15 we see that the resurrection is necessary for our justification, but does not say that belief in it is necessary. Verse 12 and following shows that some of the Corinthian believers did not believe in the resurrection and reiterates the deleterious ramifications of this error. This epistle is written to the Church at Corinth (1:2; 1:7 et al).
Did these believers who already have eternal life then lose their salvation? Did the awareness of their lack then show that they were not true believers in the first place? Or were they eternally saved, carnal believers, who needed to know and apply these resurrection facts so that they may be saved in the sanctification sense and enjoy the resurrection life during their earthly pilgrimage? The first two options are not implied in the context and are disqualified by other scripture. Something similar to the last seems to be more on target.
Unless you are already way ahead of me on this it might be beneficial to also develop this point. No reply to this note is expected as I realize that you have a heavy schedule.
We continue to pray. Keep up the good work (1 Cor. 15:58)
This is an excellent observation and should be developed further. I also want to point out that Peter and the apostles did not believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus until after He died and rose again (cf. Matt 16:20-23; Mark 9:31-32; Luke 9:44-45; 18:31-34; 24:19-26; John 20:9, 24-30). Does this then mean that they were not justified until they believed in the death and resurrection?
I’ll give an update on how things went after the conference.
Hi Jeremy,
You recently posted a comment on a blog that I contribute to. I responded to you, but you have yet to reply. Would you return to our blog and respond? I’ll be back later to answer some of your questions here as well.
Thanks,
Rachel
Rachel,
Regarding the panel discussion, Tom Stegall was the only member of the panel who gave an unqualified “Yes” answer to the panel topic.
Ken Wilson, as best I could understand, argued that a person only has to believe that Jesus is the God-Man, the Christ, who takes away the sin of the world. He seemed to state that a lost person doesn’t have to know specifically how Jesus takes away sin. So this really is at odds with Tom Stegall’s view.
The basic view of Tim Nichols was that “The questions doesn’t matter because we always talk about the death and resurrection of Jesus anyway.”
Larry Moyer was a last minute addition to the panel, and he was somewhere between Tom Stegall and Tim Nichols. He said that he always talks about the death and resurrection, but that if someone believed in Jesus for eternal life before he had the chance to tell them about the death and resurrection, he thought they would probably go to heaven, but wasn’t sure.
So as you can see, the question was not answered by any of these three men by a “Yes” or a “No.” Asking for a “yes” or “no” answer to this question is like asking a man “Yes or no. Have you stopped beating your wife?”
The panel question was: “Is explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection necessary for eternal salvation?” In my e-mails to Dave Anderson, which I have copies of, I answered this question “Yes” because of passages like Heb 5:9. But of course, in that passage, obedience is also required, and the salvation in view is sanctification, not justification.
Clarity of terminology is vitally important in this debate. The term “salvation” in Scripture rarely (if ever) refers solely and only to receiving eternal life. In fact, I personally can’t find one place where it refers solely and only to receiving eternal life. Not even Ephesisans 2:8-9, which in context, refers to being seated with Christ in the heavenlies, etc. So if someone were to ask me “Is belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus necessary for salvation?” my answer is either “Yes” or “What do you mean by ’salvation’ and is that the Biblical use of that term?”
What I really appreciate about your response to my comment is that you seemed to have clarified what you mean by the term by writing “saved/receive eternal life.” If you would allow me to remove the word “saved” then I can answer your question more directly. So, as reworded, you question is: “Is explicit belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection required for a lost person to receive eternal life?”
The answer to that question is the answer to this question: “Did Peter and the other apostles believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus when they beleived in Him for eternal life?” They clearly did not as various passages in the Gospels reveal. So, right here, in Scripture, we have examples of people who did not believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, but who did have eternal life because they believed in Jesus for it.
But if someone argues, “Yes, but that is before the historical events of the death and resurrection of Jesus!” then we now have another question: “Has the condition for receiving eternal life changed?” That is the real question behind this debate.
So far, I am undecided on this issue, and am still seeking answers. I have not yet seen an explanation on how Peter and the apostles could have eternal life without believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus, but how today we must believe it. Did the offer of eternal life change?
This is why I pointed people to my blog to answer some of the questions I have posted there. They are not trick questions trying to sidetrack the debate. If I am to be convinced that belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus are necessary today to receive eternal life, those are the questions I need answered. Right now, I cannot answer them, and I don’t see Tom, or Lou, or Dennis, trying to answer those questions from Scripture either. Until then, I am officially undecided.
Anyway, thanks for your blog. Good, friendly places are needed to discuss these things.
Jeremy Myers
Hi Jeremy,
I hope you’re going well. I’ve read about the panel discussion and thought that the participants being well-versed in the Bible might at some time read my (article) “How Could Jesus Spend Three Days and Three Nights in the Tomb?” containing an unparalleled Tuesday crucifixion and Friday resurrection theory at http://www.faithreaders.com/article-details.php?article=16869 and comment on it. In my view, belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus is only necessary for those whose target is salvation. Belief in the sign of Jonah (3 days and 3 nights as per Mat 12:40) may, however, be of vital importance, serving as a yardstick for Jesus to “measure” our faith in Him when He comes to “separate the sheep from the goats”. I would be grateful to you, if you could submit my above article to the participants of a panel discussion held at a later date. Blessings, Sandor
Many search the scrolls diligently but life is not in the scrolls (gospel of John). Adam believed the lie and acted on his belief by partaking of the product of the producer of the knowledge of function and dysfunction(Genesis 2&3). The faith of Adam, belief and expression, is the foundation of the concept of sin. Adam believed the lie of Satan and ate. Sin is the action of one spiritually lifeless having acted on the lie. The lie – ‘I believe I am my own ruler, will and expression'(see Isaiah 14:13,14). In the gospel of John 6:29 the Lord defines the work of God as believing in the one he has sent. In Romans 1:16 the power of God (who is Christ the Righteousness of God) for salvation is for everyone who believes ( in the person, work and resurrection of Jesus Christ.) To believe in Jesus Christ one first needs to know Jesus Christ personally and intimately. To know Jesus Christ is to hear and believe in his work for us, his death burial and resurrection, as the work of God. To know and believe that all mankind is born spiritually lifeless (spiritually dead) and dysfunctional, and as a descendent of Adam each of us needs life (who is the person of Jesus Christ the Righteous One of God). To believe in His remedial work in our place and that He was raised to life, is to be reconciled with God who is our very life eternally. When one believes this message, the message of life, the Spirit of Christ, life Himself, enters us who believe. Christ is not a commodity, a doctrine to be followed, a destiny, a status endowed, or a principle to be applied to ‘our life’. The believer has relinquished personal life for the life of Christ. Therefore we who believe can agree with the Apostle Paul – I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God. (Galatians 2:20)
EMG,
I don’t disagree (if I am understanding you correctly), but we must make sure we understand the difference between how to receive eternal life (believe in Jesus Christ alone for it), and the logical and theological foundations for that truth (deity of Jesus, death and resurrection of Jesus, sinfulness of humanity, etc., etc., etc.).
Everybody will have to know some of the logical and theological foundations for the free offer of eternal life, but nobody can know all of them. So, with the help of the spirit, and in light of a relationship we have with a person, we share with them whatever is necessary to help them believe in Jesus for eternal life.
Agreed on a point well taken focusing on ‘whatever is necessary’ to receive eternal life. Apparently many theologians
and biblical scholars fumble with or skirt around the truth as if the message of life were a proposition or a premise based on a certain quantity of historical information or a qualitative formula.
The crux of the matter reduces down from halls of rationalism to be the person of Christ by means of his Holy Spirit speaking through the heart and mouth of the believing saint, revealing himself as The Gift of eternal life. Christ is saying ‘I am the resurrection and The Life’. He is the righteous One of God. He is the chosen One of God revealing himself to the hearer. Christ is Life Himself revealing Himself in the message of Life. Many mistakenly perceive Life as some thing bestowed on the hearer, a force endowed, or an impersonal commodity delivered when the message of life is believed. Many discussions, presently and historically, view Life as a thing instead of Life being the gift of God Himself in and through the message. From this view Jesus the Christ is revealing himself as the power of God and the work of God having been sent to be the propitiation for us and resurrected having overcome lifelessness, death.
To reiterate a bit…a saint is not made righteous but Christ in us is our righteousness. A saint is not chosen by God through foreknowledge (prognosis) or predetermination (prohorizo). Christ is the righteous One and chosen One of God. We don’t believe in Christ for Life we believe in Christ as Life eternal. We don’t give a message to be believed on, we give the word of God and power of God as we hear God speak we speak. Christ spoke and did what He saw and heard the Father speak and work. So to we are moved to reveal Him to be be received by grace through faith.